» 20-10: "Shotgun" 2009.11.20 Options

[alynch]

When an elderly man defends his shop from an armed robbery, Detectives Kevin Bernard (Anthony Anderson) and Cyrus Lupo (Jeremy Sisto) suspect that this incident could have been an inside job. After further investigation, the detectives discover that the mugging might have been a scare tactic for a shakedown. Also starring: S. Epatha Merkerson (Lieutenant Anita Van Buren), Sam Waterston (District Attorney Jack McCoy), Alana De La Garza (Connie Rubirosa), and Linus Roache (Michael Cutter).

Gould was good, but this episode tried to do too much. Jason Jones's appearance from last season was fun, but this time he was wedged into the episode in a rather clumsy fashion. They can't all be winners.

Also, was there any particular reason that Connie & Cutter randomly switched spots in the middle of Gould's cross examination? That was weird.

This post has been edited by alynch: Nov 20, 2009 @ 9:25 pm.

[samsnee]

I'm not usually a fan of guest stars on the Mothership since the storylines are usually weaker. And this was no exception. How difficult would it have been for Gould to say "I panicked and just shot the first guy I thought I could."

[BraeJayQ]

It was strange to me that the facts never fundamentally changed but all of a sudden Gould went from being "hero" to "super villain." At the end of the day, armed men still came into his place of business and assaulted his co-worker. Regardless of whether he'd seen one of them before or not a reasonable person could conclude that he was in fear for his life which is the legal standard for the use of deadly force in New York.

[Tripp3235]

I didn't care for this episode. Stan, a nearly 70 year old tax accountant, was apparently shrewd enough to keep his senses about him when three men march in to rob him (while armed) and recognize the guy who was with the "punk" who came in trying to buy his property weeks ago. (When we know officers trained in this type of thing freeze up instantly). Then as the armed guy is beating the shit out of his employee (who I believed he did care for), he was to deduce that they weren't in "real danger" and should have taken care not to mortally wound any of the men, who again, were perpetrating an armed robbery. Finally, he realizes he has an opportunity here to "teach Max a lesson" and drive the price of his property, thus grabbing his nearby shotgun and firing the weapon.

Couldn't it be supposed that if Stan recognized one of them as Max's "friends", he might have thought Max sent him there to "kill" versus a "shakedown" because if Stan was dead, his relatives might be willing to sell the property at the same or even lower price? And it bugs me that Max just got 5 years even though he arranged this type of assault on an old man because he wasn't willing to sell his own property at a ridiculously low price? Isn't Max more responsible for these men's death than Stan since he orchestrated the event that led to their deaths?

And maybe since I watch so much CSI, but someone should have checked to see if Stan was left handed or right handed and know where the rifle was stored under the desk. It might have made major sense for him to shoot at the guy on the left first, because by the time he swung around to where the other guy was, the one on his left could have jumped on him and snatched it away. (After all, you've got the reflexes of a 70 year going up against 20-30 year olds.) In fact, that's another thing he could have said. "When I pulled out the gun, the one this one came towards me, forcing me to fire at him first..."

[Vella]

This felt really weak and I didn't care for it. A man who's owned his own business for 45 years gets robbed one day and decides to take advantage and kill one of the guy's who's trying to shake him down? Seriously? I might buy that if the guys hadn't come in with guns and proceeded to kick the shit out of his loyal employee, but they did.

I just don't buy the attempt to make Stan a cold blooded killer. It didn't feel like a great miscarriage of justice occurred. I was actually happy he sold his bulding for a good price and was going to retire to Palm Beach.

The one bit I did smile at, was Jack studiously giving his hair a quick run through with his fingers before the reporter put him on camera.

[Tripp3235]

The one bit I did smile at, was Jack studiously giving his hair a quick run through with his fingers before the reporter put him on camera.

Yea. Actually, my favorite part was Bernard plopping down on the survivor and making him moan. Hee.

[thuganomics85]

Yeah, I thought Elliot Gould did a good job, but I wasn't digging this episode as much as the past few ones. While I can see the possibilites, I found it more believeable that Stan simply panicked and starting shooting at whoever was in the store, then being some kind of calculating, stone-cold genius, who killed everyone to get him self more money and a nice condo. As for him not recognizing DeWayne, even though witnesses saw him running from him, I wasn't sure how close Stan was to him. I can buy that he didn't get a good look at him, and simply went back into the store, because as Max put it, DeWayne was scary looking. I guess discovering that he and his employee covering up who was shot first had some suspicions, but even then, as wrong as that was, I can see other reasons why they lied, that don't involve a massive cover-up. I'm not sure if it was the writing of Gould's performance, but at the end, I just couldn't see that maniuplating villian, and still saw an old man, who really did like his employee and his neighberhood, was put into a bad situation, and did what he could to survive, even if what he did wasn't perfect. Sure, he could have "shot the legs", or shot one, and told the other two to freeze, but I imagine that not many people can be rational in those situations, and many would simply do the old "shoot first, ask questions later" method, instead.

And yeah, I found it annoying that at the end, Max only got five years, even though this whole situation happened because of his selfish punk ass.

Hello again, Jason Jones. I guess he's suppose to be playing L&0's version of an one man Fox News talking point. He can be amusing, but I'm hoping for some other Daily Show gang to pop up. There has to be something that John Oliver, Wyatt Cenac, or Aasif Manvi can do, heh.

I did like seeing everyone's reaction to the inital shooting and how it as different. Bernard was symphaphtic, while Lupo was suspecious. Cutter thought he was a hero; same can't be said for Jack or Connie. And poor Van Buren didn't care, because she apparently has enough shit to deal with already.

[Scarlett1972]

Honestly, I'm trying to figure out if Dick Wolf doesn't really care about the stories he claims are the heart of the L&O series or if he's trying to make a statement that gets undermined by the simplistic political caricatures he keeps using to make sure we know where he stands politically. Was I really supposed to agree with one of the punk's girlfriends or find sympathy for him because he got shot while he just "wanted to provide for his family" by harassing some old guy instead of getting a real job? Or agreeing with the mother who was screaming at the accountant that he shot her baby when she should have been apologizing for her son's behavior in being there to intimidate the man in his own store? Yes, I'm a mother and I would have reacted to my child being shot, but if I knew my son was threatening someone else for no other reason than he was a thug? I would be horrified and apologize for my child putting them in that position in the first place.

And then the change between the accountant being a hero to a bloodthirsty criminal mastermind? Okay, so as above, we are supposed to feel sympathy or something for the punks and find some kind of crackheaded nobility for what they did while some rich little snot skates on five years for creating the situation because his grandfather wanted to do something noble for his late daughter instead of paying the little snot's gambling debts, but an old man who was being harassed is the devil incarnate? Really, Dick Wolf? Really?

[yd45]

While I can see the possibilites, I found it more believeable that Stan simply panicked and starting shooting at whoever was in the store, then being some kind of calculating, stone-cold genius, who killed everyone to get him self more money and a nice condo

I don't think the episode was really depicting him as calculating. In fact, I think in the end he was portrayed as someone who did panic somewhat. And in the heat of this panic he realized that, even though neither he nor his employee were in danger, he could gain personally by killing the burglers. It was a split-second decision that he probably regretted . You could see that that clearly he felt guilty right after it happened when he was talking to Lupo and Bernard. But I don't believe it was morally or legally excusable. At the moment he fired the gun, I think he knew that there was no danger to anyone. In my opinion, it would have been right for the prosecutors to charge him. I really enjoyed this episode. I thought it did a very good job of illustrating a very morally ambigious situation.

Was I really supposed to agree with one of the punk's girlfriends or find sympathy for him because he got shot while he just "wanted to provide for his family" by harassing some old guy instead of getting a real job? Or agreeing with the mother who was screaming at the accountant that he shot her baby when she should have been apologizing for her son's behavior in being there to intimidate the man in his own store?

No. You weren't. I certainly don't think anything in the episode would suggest that somehow these statements from the characters you mention were to be agreed with. They were just rationalizations made by people who loved or cared about the victims. Why did you feel the episode was attempting to be sympathetic to these statements?

This post has been edited by yd45: Nov 21, 2009 @ 4:54 am.

[msgtgumby]

Honestly, I'm trying to figure out if Dick Wolf doesn't really care about the stories he claims are the heart of the L&O series or if he's trying to make a statement that gets undermined by the simplistic political caricatures he keeps using to make sure we know where he stands politically. Was I really supposed to agree with one of the punk's girlfriends or find sympathy for him because he got shot while he just "wanted to provide for his family" by harassing some old guy instead of getting a real job? Or agreeing with the mother who was screaming at the accountant that he shot her baby when she should have been apologizing for her son's behavior in being there to intimidate the man in his own store? Yes, I'm a mother and I would have reacted to my child being shot, but if I knew my son was threatening someone else for no other reason than he was a thug? I would be horrified and apologize for my child putting them in that position in the first place.

And then the change between the accountant being a hero to a bloodthirsty criminal mastermind? Okay, so as above, we are supposed to feel sympathy or something for the punks and find some kind of crackheaded nobility for what they did while some rich little snot skates on five years for creating the situation because his grandfather wanted to do something noble for his late daughter instead of paying the little snot's gambling debts, but an old man who was being harassed is the devil incarnate? Really, Dick Wolf? Really?

I don't think you can watch a TV show without a leaning political message being thrown at you, I just shake my head and move on, otherwise I couldn't watch TV at all. I actually just started watching new episodes again after a two year hiatus and this is the first one that has bugged me since coming back. Eh, hopefully the next one will be good.

[DonnaJ]

I was really hoping that the old man wasn't corrupt, and really shot those kids only to defend his business and his assistant. I thought the assistant would be the inside man, since they set up right away that he knew the kid who survived from martial arts class.

The girlfriend and the mom bugged me. Girlfriend says boyfriend didn't want to hurt anyone. Yet he saw DeWayne was packing in the teaser. And the mom going crazy like that. Her son was alive and awake, so that was an overreaction.

Why do they set up a difference of opinion or conflict in every episode between Lupo & Bernard? Has the show always done that with the law team? I'm so worried about Anita - why is she frantically trying to talk with her doctor? Something must have happened.

Alynch, I also thought it odd that Cutter took over for Connie in the middle of court. I thought she's be pissed, but she wasn't.

[Scarlett1972]

They were just rationalizations made by people who loved or cared about the victims. Why did you feel the episode was attempting to be sympathetic to these statements?

Maybe because no one really said anything otherwise and it seemed like after enough "they weren't going to hurt him"s, the whole part about them kicking the accountant's assistant and harassing the accountant just sort of fell by the wayside. It went from random thug attack to organized shakedown masterminded by a rich kid who was being held responsible for the shootings/deaths because he sent them in the store to finally the thugs basically being the hapless victims of greedy circumstance by the accountant who was evil enough to know the value of his property and not want to give it up. In that context, it did feel like the thugs were released from any true responsibility because the blame shifted from them ultimately being responsible for their own stupid and violent actions to them simply being victims in a botched land grab.

[txhorns79]

I don't think the episode was really depicting him as calculating. In fact, I think in the end he was portrayed as someone who did panic somewhat. And in the heat of this panic he realized that, even though neither he nor his employee were in danger, he could gain personally by killing the burglars. It was a split-second decision that he probably regretted . You could see that that clearly he felt guilty right after it happened when he was talking to Lupo and Bernard. But I don't believe it was morally or legally excusable. At the moment he fired the gun, I think he knew that there was no danger to anyone.

For me, it's very hard to say to someone who is being robbed that they should know and understand the motivations of their robbers and realize that they are not in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. Even if he realized it was a shakedown, isn't it kind of silly to say that he should have known that they only intended to beat him/scare him into giving up his business, rather than something more serious? For all he knew, they could have killed his assistant to show him how serious they were about his selling.

I'm so worried about Anita - why is she frantically trying to talk with her doctor? Something must have happened.

She was trying to get test results regarding her treatment.

[garv403]

I believe this was the weakest episode this season so far. They covered much the same ground back in 1992 with "Self Defense"(Season 3, Ep.# 51). That episode was much better written--the morality of the shooting
was more ambiguous. You really weren't sure what to think. Adam Arkin played the shopkeeper.

[sweetpd7]

Anita probably wanted her test results after weeks of chemo to see if the cancer was diminishing or spreading.

The lawyers on L&O devise theories that are always true, even if they would require being present during the crime or have ESP, to know beyond a doubt. sigh.

So, Gould went from an uneasy hero to a calculating SOB who saw thugs with guns, but realized they were only there to scare him, not shoot him. That he connected DeWayne to Marco, I get. But when he saw guns, and his assistant was getting the crap kicked out of him, could he know for sure he or his friend weren't going to end up dead? I just don't buy that in the heat of the moment, he would figure out it was somehow in his best interest to kill DeWayne. For it to have been premeditated murder, Stan would have had to know they were going to enter his business to shake him down. I don't buy that in the heat of all the chaos, Stan turned into a cold blooded shooter. It doesn't logically add up for me. I maintain that for once (he he), Jack and his pack, were wrong and Stan deserved to get off, sell his house and retire to sunny Florida.

This post has been edited by sweetpd7: Nov 22, 2009 @ 12:54 pm.