+ Reply to Thread
Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 93

Thread: Show discussion thread 7/28

  1. #81
    FORT Fanatic
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    687
    Maikij: And they should have gone after damages. Even if she hadn't gone for professional help, it doesn't mean she wasn't affected by what happened.


    O come on. She got 5 grand out of driving like an a$$hole and being pulled over by someone she thought was a cop. Given that, she probably drove away grateful the "cop" didnt write her a ticket. A week later, she finds out he's the county coroner. Big deal. She should have gotten $1, and the other $4999 should have gone to a victim's compensation fund for people who are injured by selfish, irresponsible drivers like her.
    I hate she raked in a nice little chunk of change out of driving like a jerk.

    I'm not defending the coroner; he should be charged with misconduct and impersonating a police officer.
    Last edited by onewally; 07-29-2005 at 10:55 PM.

  2. #82
    FORT Fanatic
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    687
    I shouldnt say this...so off topic.....but I bet the coroner felt great to be able to make her stop so he could give her a piece of his mind. Dont we all have a sort of mental vaporizer for tailgaters, left lane hogs, and rude drivers who cut us off in traffic? I live in Chicago....I have lots of opportunities to mentally zap people. I visualize them sitting on the pavement...their cars a heap of ash around them....

  3. #83
    FORT Regular
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    50
    Yes, she drove like a jerk, but it was pointed out that so did he.

    What he should have done was call the police instead of speeding and impersonating an officer.

    Whether she deserved more money isn't the point. A good lawyer tries to get it and it was pointed out by Roy Black that, that wasn't done.

    Didn't someone on this board say earlier that they knew someone who was stopped by a fake cop and ended up murdered?

    It's a scary thought that anyone can pull anyone over.

    And there is that road rage thing going on too. Don't people get murdered over it? And a lot of times they get murdered over a driving error, which everyone does from time to time.

    At least this guy didn't pull out a gun and shoot her.

    Sure she was wrong for the way she was driving. But his wrongs were far worse.

  4. #84
    FORT Upperclassman
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    114
    dejaFlex asked about the entertainment value of show earlier in this thread. I enjoyed it as it seems to have a similar theme to the Apprentice, but is not Donald Trump Goes to Court.

    Seeing real lawyers compete on actual cases is more interesting than scripted lawyer shows. However, the show bounced back and forth between the cases too much. I would have preferred to watch one case until judgement is rendered, then watch the other, especially on the first show. I was trying to get to know the contestants too.

    I'm also glad that the "winning" team contestants can and were eliminated. I work in a law firm (not a lawyer), and know that they evaluate cases and will consider it a success if they get the award above or below a certain amount, depending on the side. I'm sure Roy Black evaluated these cases beforehand and judged the success of the teams based upon the award. In both situations, it appeared to be easy "victories" for the plaintiffs, just how much $$$ was the winning factor.

    Again from my work experience, I knew Jason would be eliminated as he made smart-aleck answer to Roy Black and had no subsequent retort. If this happened in our firm, it would be career-suicide. Jason should have anticipated that Roy Black was going to ask about his blunder and attempted an answer, even if lame.

    I don't consider this excellent reality TV, but decent. It is enjoyable for those like me, that find the law practice interesting and enjoy reality TV.

  5. #85
    FORT Fan
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Posts
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by leeinsmyrna
    Speaking of that promo for next week....was that Geoff Fieger (Jack "Dr. Death" Kevorkian's attorney) that was shown in the preview? Does anyone know?

    Yes, that was definitely Feiger in the promo. He is a funny guy when he is on Greta Van Susteren show. In Arizona, we got the promo that revealed the ending. I liked the show, but I like anything about legal issues. Those two cases seemed so preordained in outcome, that I was glad elimination was not dependent upon winning or losing. It seems as if the judges are primed for hassling the lawyers. Everyone (judges, plaintiffs, defendants) seemed like actors on a soap and not real people like on other court shows. I wonder if they take real cases and use actors to recreate from a script....

  6. #86
    FORT Fogey
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Age
    48
    Posts
    1,127
    Quote Originally Posted by Moekle
    Seeing real lawyers compete on actual cases is more interesting than scripted lawyer shows. However, the show bounced back and forth between the cases too much. I would have preferred to watch one case until judgement is rendered, then watch the other, especially on the first show. I was trying to get to know the contestants too.
    It was mentioned elsewhere that the premiere episode was originally supposed to be two hours, and this may have originally been filmed with the intent of this being a two hour episode.

  7. #87
    FORT Fan
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Posts
    308
    Well, the show isn't that bad, and I'll probably see it through. My thoughts:

    -I too like the fact that no one is safe from the eliminations-- no exemptions or anything like that. It's also true that lawyers are not judged (and shouldn't be judged) solely on their win/loss record. Sometimes the case you get is a stinker (like the coroner case, seemed like a guaranteed loss for the defendant). A good lawyer can limit how big the loss is. I think that's why Black pointed out how the plaintiff didn't go for the punitive damages.

    -As someone in the field of law, I have to point out how the show doesn't exactly represent the whole of the legal profression. A trial is merely the culmination of many weeks and months of hard work. There are no law and motion hearings, no endless months of discovery, and no hours of writing. However, this is probably because Black is looking for a trial lawyer, but still, even trial lawyers have to be able to do all that other stuff.

    -The dog did not belong in the courtroom. The judge was right when he noted that. When Black criticized the team for not anticipating that move, I thought that was harsh. Under normal circumstances, the dog would probably come up on the witness list or evidence list and the other side would have known.

    -Where did they get some of these people? All of them claim to be some kind of litigator or criminal lawyer, but some of them acted like they'd never been in a courtroom before. The Asian girl was just terrible and the guy who moved to strike on the dog owner's crazy comment-- what were they thinking?

    -Even though the cases were small, they were interesting. I'm glad it is not just "Law & Order" style and just all criminal cases. It's also neat that they have different court settings-- arbitration, court before judge, jury trial, etc.

    Well, I'll see what happens next week.

  8. #88
    FORT Fogey
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Age
    48
    Posts
    1,127
    Wow:

    Watching the repeat, you can clearly see why Kelly deserved to be dismissed. It was even worse than I thought.

  9. #89
    FORT Fogey
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Age
    48
    Posts
    1,127
    Forgot to note:

    The show is apparently going to repeat on Bravo. The remaining repeats this week are Tuesday at 2:00 AM and 6:00 PM Eastern Time (I don't know if Bravo has separate East/West feeds or not).

  10. #90
    FORT Fanatic LalahLand's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    685
    Quote Originally Posted by Vonna
    I thought the show was interesting, but I'm not so sure they should dismiss the ones on the winning team. What is the incentive for winning if you are not given the safety of continuing in the game?
    I don't agree. The defendents were CLEARLY in the wrong in both cases. It wouldn't be fair to punish the defense team for being assigned cases that are all but slam dunks for the prosecution.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.