Bad Message
-
kaustin-9 — 19 years ago(February 02, 2007 06:17 AM)
Eddie The Head, the poster meant "concatenation". Only one letter was incorrect. Dictionary.com says the word means "the state of being linked together as in a chain; union in a linked series". When you don't know a word, look it up.
-
gpgirard — 18 years ago(June 20, 2007 08:31 PM)
LOL. 10 seconds on Google would have given you the correct explanation of the acronym, RICO. Using "big words" like concatenation impresses nobody, particularly when they are spelled incorrectly. Moreover, if you're referring to the post by the author with Pac Man and his name, in so far as he goes, the gist of his information is essentially correct. The law is well settled that the gravamen of a conspiracy charge is the agreement, not the act. You really should wait until you finish law school, pass the bar, and practice some law before rendering legal opinions instead of relying on a spurious authority as a "law student."
-
frogca — 16 years ago(May 18, 2009 07:09 PM)
While they were actually on trial for conspiracy, the C in RICO actually stands for "Corrupt". RICO is the Racketeering In Corrupt Organizations Act. I don't know why the movie made the mistake of claiming that the C meant conspiracy
Sure, but a Corrupt Organization is committing conspiracy people working together for a criminal purpose. The two C's are intertwined, and I take it that the lawyer (Klandis) was using poetic licence when he described it that way. -
StrangledPalooka — 18 years ago(April 12, 2007 11:22 AM)
If they were all on charge for specific crimes, when Jackie says "Have I ever denied using Cocaine" (which is actual dialogue from the real court case) they would have abviosly found him guilty then right?
Umno. He'd already been convicted of that, remember? Why would he deny something for which he was already in prison? -
gpgirard — 18 years ago(June 20, 2007 08:12 PM)
Actually, RICO stands for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. The Act is very complex and subject to abuse in the criminal context on the part of the government and prosecuting attorneys. It can also be invoked in civil cases between private parties in disputes over money. For example, in the recent sex abuse scandals involving the Catholic Church, RICO actions were brought.
-
Ant_Lan — 18 years ago(August 23, 2007 08:13 PM)
Peter Dinklage's closing argument (by the way, that guy has such a voice and presence, I'm gonna make a point of seeing "The Station Agent" and anything esle he's done!) pretty much sums up what happened.
This trial took something like two years. Take a moment to think back on each month, week and day of your life for the last two years, and imagine those being focused on one and only one thing: a trial.
The prosecutor became the Persecutor
, Ben Klandis argues at the end of those two years. In my view, that's what stuck with the jury - the guy didn't even care anymore why he was putting these people on trial, he just wanted to win at any cost.
I'm far from a legal expert, but I was thrown back to one time where I had to testify in court - the prosecutor had three cases to argue in the same day, and didn't really seem to care that much about who he was trying to put away. I felt like he had a criminal in front of him, and he had to put him away, period. In the movie, Kierney had that motivation PLUS he seemed obsessed about them. I honestly don't know what my final vote would've been if sitting on that jury, knowing, as someone said in this thread, that you have to go beyond a reasonable doubt to convict.
-DAVE S'T'UN TUEUR!
-DAVE S'T'UNE TERREUR!
-Dave y magan. -
strangenoise — 17 years ago(March 10, 2009 03:22 PM)
You might also argue that the movie not is a twisted mirror of a legal and judicial system, but that it's a mirror of a twisted legal and judicial system. Most of the points that are argued in the trial scenes speak against 'the system': racial profiling, FBI trading drugs for confessions, lawyer earning thousands even before the process starts etc. And though the dialogue is taken up from the real court records, one should always keep in mind that it's dramatized. The whole movie is built around DiNorscio and I can perfectly see the point in this: DiNorscio is the one honest character here, a naive idealistic believer in love and honour, likeable in its own ways (a little too macho, not all his jokes hit their goal but still in the parameters). His most intense scene is the meeting with his cousin on the witness stand. One could believe that he did it all just to talk to him and set things straight or at least understand. Lumet draws only two sympathetic characters here: his protagonist and Ben Klandis (great actor, check In Bruges), the (let's be honest on this) dwarf, an underdog in his own ways and it's not surprising that these two kinda band together. We can like DiNorscio (clever narrative move: he's never given to us as a murderer or something on the unecessary-violence scale) and dislike Calabrese, we can wonder why our 'good guy' gets kicked and the bad guys (remember the decadent yacht scene) get away. And as already mentioned before, this is a 'cute' movie, not the right-in-your-face social commentary one might expect, it's farcical and I think (as I also judge from the reactions in this board) it brought its message home: funny, nice but almost a little disturbing.
And btw: I think Diesel did a good job here, not Academy Award, but it is solid acting (though I might have been wise to hide his face in the scene after his mother's death, something tells he is not good with the crying scenes) -
Behelit — 11 years ago(May 12, 2014 07:31 AM)
Ben Klandis (great actor, check In Bruges), the (let's be honest on this) dwarf
Jordan Prentice was that actor in the movie
In Bruges
, not Peter Dinklage. Yeah seems like Dinklage put such an impression on you that you managed to mistake him for another actor. But hey who cares right? After all he's a "dwarf" as you said in your mighty honesty. -
djsnafu23 — 12 years ago(December 30, 2013 06:14 PM)
I'm kinda shocked to read that so many would let mobsters walk just coz the prosecution is greedy. Like the OP said, Diesel's character kept saying he wasn't a rat so the admission of crimes was there.
.
http://soundcloud.com/dj-snafu-bankrupt-euros
Coz lifes too short to listen to Madlib -
JoeGPM — 10 years ago(June 21, 2015 12:29 PM)
If this is even a halfway accurate version of the story, it says very bad things about our jury system.
The whole lot of them unanimously agreed to let all the mobsters off
for all the crimes they obviously committed- not just a few times but as a way of life. Why? Because the con artist mobster cracked jokes, showed how human he was and convinced them he was just like them, the jurors. He talked about how much he LOVED all these guys. And the noble martyr BS at the end where he tells them to find HIM guilty (even though he's not, but he's used to it, he says) but free these other guys, that was so disgusting. The jurors had to be absolutely STUPID to fall for such garbage.
For the most part our jury system works. But as this story demonstrates, it is possible to come up with an entire jury of idiots, especially when it is anticipated that it will be a very long trial. Normal people can't stop everything for two years to sit on a jury. So they end up with dumba**es who have nothing else to do.
Very, very sad.
This clown thinks a legal system where people are convicted on the assumption of guilt is a superior one. Also, if he thinks the jury acquitted all the defendants merely because of some "cracked jokes" then he wasn't paying attention.
- not just a few times but as a way of life. Why? Because the con artist mobster cracked jokes, showed how human he was and convinced them he was just like them, the jurors. He talked about how much he LOVED all these guys. And the noble martyr BS at the end where he tells them to find HIM guilty (even though he's not, but he's used to it, he says) but free these other guys, that was so disgusting. The jurors had to be absolutely STUPID to fall for such garbage.