|
I never said the show should be an indictment of the criminal justice system. I was simply replying to the people who claimed that this show was about the criminal justice system and how it messed people's lives. Second, the reason that "regardless of the motive" is there is because people also can't claim, like some have, that the show is about how prison can turn people violent. Third, defending a piece of fiction from criticism by claiming its just fiction is a cop out.
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 19:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 11:30 |
|
|
joepinetree posted:The fact that they put their client on the stand with 0 prep makes them incompetent. So did you miss the point where she explicitly says she'll walk him through what needs to be said on the stand? You have a pretty loose definition of "0 prep". quote:The fact that there were other plausible suspects is not an indictment of the system, it's just characters behaving stupidly. And even in the contrived scenario of 4 other people with means, motive, opportunity, virtually shouting at the police or the lawyers that they should be suspected, Naz was still the most clear cut case. The whole point of the case was that we as a species are creatures who like stories. Oh, the defense has a good story they're going to tell us, ooh, the prosecutor has an even better one. The best stories aren't those that are transcribed, but ones peppered with truths that elicit an emotional response, which is what you're falling for. The stories that both sides present are just that, stories. Both sides have the same amount of evidence that lends credence to their stories. Their job is to make you sway your opinion. That you see these characters as "behaving stupidly" and not just "behaving as they are" just shows how susceptible you are to a skewed narrative. quote:As for prone to violence, I am talking about the "prison transformed him" narrative. Regardless of the motive, he was already pushing people down the stairs or throwing soda cans at people's heads unprovoked. Are you a minority? As a dark skin minority who grew up in a hostile school environment, you don't get days off just because someone didn't gently caress with you for a day. I liked the detail that it was a hispanic kid who he pushed as well, as low income minorities, especially teens, can be very racist/isolationist, if only to evoke a reaction from others. quote:From the point of view of what happened to Naz, the system worked beautifully. Unless you believe people fleeing from murder scenes with blood and the possible murder weapon on them shouldn't be charged and arrested. This is what happens when the narrative of the country shifts from "Innocent til proven guilty" to "guilty til proven guilty of something".
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Oh, give me a loving break. First, that is not how cross examination prep goes. Second, that is the weakest argument I've ever read. Hey, character motivations, internal consistency, etc. none of that matters. It's just "characters behaving as they are." Hey, a supposedly competent criminal attorney kisses her client and then smuggles drugs in her vagina (which, hey, might happen), but does both things in a cell under video surveillance? Just characters being who they are. Us learning of alternative suspects because these alternative suspects behave in comically ridiculous ways? Just characters being who they are. After all, why come up with an interesting story of why another person may be a suspect when you can just get one to mug to the camera and tell a lawyer without much prompting that women like Andrea should be murdered? Why do we need to come up with any agency for Andrea? We can just write manic pixie dream girl. It's just characters behaving as they are. And spare me the race relations 101 speech, because that is absolutely unrelated to the point (which was that even the high school book report level of analysis needed to come up with the novel "story is about how prison changes people" isn't supported by the narrative). And finally, spare me the facile "guilty til proven guilty of something" line. You had a kid running away from a murder scene with the victims blood on him, a potential murder weapon, and tons of other evidence who still wasn't found guilty. If that isn't innocent till proven guilty, I don't know what is. This was a show that was a near copy of its British version, and the British version had a more meaningful ending at that. But I've already spent too much time talking about a mediocre show. You can like the show all you want. That is fine. It is just funny to see people trying to out do each other in coming up with lazy "the message of the show is..." to defend it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Oh, give me a loving break. First, that is not how cross examination prep goes. Are you a lawyer? How would you know how it works when they didn't even show what went into the "prep work"? It was a passing line, it's not like they showed a loving training montage of her prepping him for the stand, yet you're ready to dismiss it because it doesn't fit your argument. quote:Second, that is the weakest argument I've ever read. Hey, character motivations, internal consistency, etc. none of that matters. It's just "characters behaving as they are." Hey, a supposedly competent criminal attorney kisses her client and then smuggles drugs in her vagina (which, hey, might happen), but does both things in a cell under video surveillance? Just characters being who they are. Yeah? I mean, they showed the repercussions of her actions so it's not like it wasn't a plot point, you JUST loving said that it may (and does, not might, DOES, not all the time, but DOES) happen. You're mad because of... what? Tactical realism? She's a first year loving attorney who is emotionally invested in the case since her boss used her race as leverage to poach the client, then she felt obligated to stay out of her own motivations, I'll let you pretend to know what fictional characters are thinking ("she's a stupid") so you can come to your own conclusions. quote:And finally, spare me the facile "guilty til proven guilty of something" line. You had a kid running away from a murder scene with the victims blood on him, a potential murder weapon, and tons of other evidence who still wasn't found guilty. If that isn't innocent till proven guilty, I don't know what is. The only place that guilt and innocence matter is in the mind of that person passing judgement. Your whole argument is bullshit and frankly pretty loving bourgie and titty-fed, as Nas will never be "not guilty," in the eyes of his community and people who glanced at the case and cast judgement. One of the last shots is a "for sale" sign on his parent's house with a swastika spray painted on it. If that isn't guilt by mob mentality (he's stupid!), then I don't think you understand the whole concept of guilt/innocence in the way that it's actually used in our justice system/modern society (tell me again where guilt/innocence matters in the sentence "we have a stronger case against the kid" applies? Keep in mind if the jury didn't get hung up, he would've served the maximum amount of time). I find it funny that people are more angry about drug vagina than the hung jury actually. The american public is viciously stupid and apathetic, I wish the jury pool would've been more realistic in that regard, but seeing Gordon from Sesame Street save Nas' life made up for it. ruddiger fucked around with this message at 01:14 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
What is everyone so mad about, the show is over
|
|
#
?
Sep 6, 2016 23:47
|
|
|
Sunk cost fallacy. People used this to show off to friends thinking it was season 6 of the wire and then it turned out to be season 1 of the killing (or, more precisely, a newer identical copy of a pop British show), but they are too invested in it now. Pointing out that it was a mediocre adaptation of a British show makes the people who used it to claim street cred mad. But next time i teach social problems, instead of taking my students to see the state penitentiary or getting a public defender to address my class, i will just show them this show, as bougie me just never realized how this HBO show captures reality.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:16
|
|
|
Personally I come to Something Awful for all my social problem needs.  It's a loving tv show. If you feel it didn't live up to your expectations, that's your fault for thinking it was going to be the next second coming of the Wire or for thinking it was going to be some Sherlock Holmes-type clinical procedural instead of a Richard Price story. Also, as someone who's class got to participate in Chicago's Scared Straight program, I would say a fictionalized drama would actually make your students a little bit more emphatic and realize how easy it is for your own story to become skewed into something completely different (the prosecutor, like many cops in the interrogation room, knew how to get Nas to even doubt himself when she was able to illicit the "I don't know" response from him.) Are your students predominantly white or mixed? I guarantee you black and brown students will relate with Nas, especially after the reveal that he fought back when in school. Kid's respond to real struggle, even moreso if the person they're looking to actually looks like them or went through the same poo poo. Not to mention that if they engage the story you can also introduce them to some of Price's other works like Clockers, the Wanderers, or the Lush Life. But please, bring in some boring rear end public defender who has no idea how to engage with children, or a bunch of prisoners being paid off with good-behavior time to try and spook your kids into thinking everything's okay. A bunch of pre-approved, double-vetted convicts will definitely give you an unbiased look at prison life, then you can invite Officer Friendly to the class for milk and cookies. Clearly that's been working so far. ruddiger fucked around with this message at 01:36 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
Luckily, I neither teach children nor take pedagogical advice from people who use premium cable to make points about the real world.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 01:40
|
|
|
This show for me was largely forgettable, but I was kind of bummed when I didn't have another episode of Naz getting a questionable tattoo to look forward to this week. Like I'd give the series a +C, but circle episode 1 and write "more like this" next to it. I think the problem was my own expectation; I was expecting something as nuanced as the wire, when it's more like an alright airport paperback packaged as literature. Like what the gently caress am I going to watch now. I'm sure as poo poo not watching ballers Lurks Morington fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
"That character is stupid" is such a lazy rear end way of thinking, it's as bad as "will I like this or not?" And "the fx/camera work took me out of the movie" and exposes how little critical thinking the person saying it actually has.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 02:15
|
|
|
Clearly he didn't prep enough on the question "Did you kill her?"
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 11:30 |
|
|
nooneofconsequence posted:Clearly he didn't prep enough on the question "Did you kill her?" They had that problem when he was supposed to plead guilty too
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 07:14
|
|
