Law & Order "Tough Love" 5/5/2025 (was: What Did You Watch? 2025-05-08 (Thursday))

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

May 9, 2025 12:50:23 PM PDT, Arthur Lipscomb <arthur@alum.calberkeley.org>:

Law & Order - "Tough Love" - The team investigate the murder of a sports
agent.  I won't bother with more of a recap.  It would be nice if they
could tell a story that didn't involve unnecessary twists and stupid
legal maneuvers.

It would also be nice if they fired their legal advisor and got someone who
knows what the hell is going on.

This is third episode this season where, after initially pleading not guilty
and going to trial, the defense suddenly stands up mid-trial, admits to the
murder, and says "but it was self-defense".

YOU

CAN'T

DO

THAT

Automatic mistrial and referral of defense counsel to the state bar for
sanctions.

FYI: The guy who played the murder victim is going to be our next president,
according to the current fantasies of the leftist pundit-osphere.

The midtrial self defense wasn't even the worst aspect of the episode.

What Arthur said. This was a plot frequently explored in literature,
movies, tv, radio, theater, etc. Conflict between father and son. Father
puts extraordinary pressure on the son to be the best, but son
disappoints. It's a plot that's impossible to fuck up, but the writers
on this show are up to the challenge.

Yeah, the younger son was upset about something but nothing in the
police investigation even hinted at anything along these lines. In
opening, my guess was the victim was going to be the moronic 30 year old
athlete, just about to go bankrupt but couldn't fire his entourage
leaching off him. They were all committing tax fraud; none of that
spending was business expenses.

I thought we might get a rarity on this show, a decent defense counsel.
He made a decent legal argument before the judge to suppress the younger
brother's false statement to police.

I was surprised he was 17; at first, I thought he was a college freshman.

I am familiar with my state's law on whether minors must have a parent
or guardian or lawyer when speaking to police and I'll assume New York's
law is similar. Was the ruling correct? Police were treating the sons
like witnesses, not suspects.

Since the perpetrator was sympathetic and the victim could have been
portrayed in a bad light, you'd really think defense would have sought a
plea deal.

What was the point of bringing in the psychiatrist? Defense should have
laid groundwork for diminished capacity or temporary insanity. "I saw
furtive movements" doesn't get you self defense,

What's with Mauroon? "My uncle can't handle his finances so we all trade
off paying his rent." What, is he gambling his money away? Let him go
homeless.

And then, "Offer him Man 1. It's the ethical thing to do."

For a murder in which premeditation is proveable? No, no it's not. I
hate to agree with Price here, but I do.

Before trial, you might work out a plea because, again, the perpetrator
was sympathetic and victim could have been portrayed as a monster.
Nevertheless, once you've gone through trial, with defense counsel
sabotaguing his own client, go for the premeditated crime.

the actors playing the two brothers were decent in scenes
requiring them to show emotion. Once the younger brother cried during
testimony, I thought the verdict was going to be an Emmy nomination.

In this script, the writer were perpetrators of bad television.