Ending makes no sense (spoilers)
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Someone to Watch Over Me
Bladerunneru0095 — 17 years ago(August 05, 2008 08:38 PM)
Venza is free, he is totally free because the cop didn't read him his rights. So, he has NO need to bother Claire! He's free! Why in the world does he still go after Claire, and for GOD'S sake kidnap Keegan's family?!?!
All he has to do is simply walk away, they can't charge him with the murder of the guy, because there was an improper arrest and he is free.
I never understood the ending, why would a guy who is free kidnap a COP'S family to get Keegan to deliver Claire? Nuts. Makes no sense. Good movie, but totally ridiculous ending.
"nothing is left of me, each time I see her" - Catullus -
Drakenlord — 16 years ago(August 14, 2009 12:27 AM)
I took it to mean that he was free for the time being, but that if some cop picked him up again he would be arrested again. Further as soon as Claire testified that Venza was the killer Venza would go to prison.
-
Bladerunneru0095 — 16 years ago(August 18, 2009 12:44 AM)
Here is the thing: under U.S. law, if a person is arrested and is not informed of his/her rights then the arrest is invalid and the case is dismissed. They don't let him go until they can arrest him again for the same charge (which would be double indemnity). If a policeman collects evidence without a warrant or probable cause, the evidence is thrown out - they don't just put it back and do it again. Bottom line - Venza would have been free on that charge, the end. Case dismissed, it's over.
Thanks for your post, by the way, I appreciate you responding I just disagree with you.
"nothing is left of me, each time I see her" - Catullus -
Hildovar — 15 years ago(September 10, 2010 10:35 AM)
Late response, but you have it wrong. Double jeopardy only applies to a conviction, not a charge. You can arrest someone multiple times for the same felony as new evidence appears or otherwise; it'd go to a grand jury to see if there was grounds for an indictment, and the cops would have probable cause on a multitude of areas.
He got off the hook that time, but if he so much as spit on the sidewalk he'd be up again. -
Bladerunneru0095 — 15 years ago(September 11, 2010 07:07 PM)
Yes, being tried for the same crime twice is called double jeopardy (not, as I said, being arrested twice for the same thing). However, if a person is arrested for a crime and not read his rights, no, you cannot arrest him again for the same crime. If a policeman collects evidence at a person's residence and does so without a warrant, or probable cause to enter, then no, they cannot arrest you later on the same charge. Either one of those things can cause a case to be thrown out before it ever gets to trial, and that case is tossed out forever.
However, if a person is arrested for a certain crime and the grand jury finds there isn't enough evidence to true bill, then later more evidence is found (for example, the body is found) then yes, they can arrest you again - which is what you are talking about.
In the movie however, the situation is very different. In the movie there is an irregular arrest. The cop didn't read Venza his rights when he was arrested, that is an irregular arrest and means that the case is tossed out. The end, he cannot be arrested for the same, exact offense that he was first arrested for, again. This is why it is so incredibly important for cops to Mirandize a suspect when arrested, because not doing that can result in the case being tossed out - permanently. The end. So, I have it right.
"nothing is left of me, each time I see her" - Catullus -
doug7347 — 15 years ago(September 12, 2010 08:32 AM)
You are mistaken.
It is only evidence (such as a confession) tainted by a faulty arrest that is suppressed, not the entire case. Prosecutors are free to proceed based on other evidence that is not tainted.
In any event there was nothing wrong with this arrest. It's just another blooper in this poor script. -
Bladerunneru0095 — 15 years ago(December 29, 2010 10:51 PM)
The script is poor, you are right, but if a person is arrested and (for whatever reason) the arrest creates some problem that taints the case, the prosecutor may choose not to bring it to trial. The movie suggests something else though, the movie suggests that the irregular arrest led to the case being thrown out by a judge, which is a whole different matter. The bottom line is this, the only evidence they had was the witness. If the judge threw the case out, knowing the only evidence they had was the witness, then Venza should have just went along his merry way. Why he continued to pursue her, is a major hole in the plot. Why he kidnapped a POLICEMAN'S FAMILY, simply to trade for the witness, is even more stupid. It's complete and utter nonsense. What is he going to do with the witness once he has her - and has just committed two counts of kidnapping (actually, three with the witness)? Is he going to kill her? That's smart, kidnap a policeman's family, trade them for a witness, then kill her. Haha. The whole thing is absurd.
Why is it then that this is one of my favorite movies? THAT is the real mystery.
"nothing is left of me, each time I see her" - Catullus -
darkavenger77 — 12 years ago(May 31, 2013 10:34 AM)
Here is the thing: under U.S. law, if a person is arrested and is not informed of his/her rights then the arrest is invalid and the case is dismissed. They don't let him go until they can arrest him again for the same charge (which would be double indemnity). If a policeman collects evidence without a warrant or probable cause, the evidence is thrown out - they don't just put it back and do it again. Bottom line - Venza would have been free on that charge, the end. Case dismissed, it's over.
I'll add in to the points made by others here since I worked in law enforcement:
under U.S. law, if a person is arrested and is not informed of his/her rights then the arrest is invalid and the case is dismissed.
That's incorrect. To expand on what doug7347 posted, under Miranda v. US, the court held that police were required to read rights prior to interrogation. If no interrogation is made, then no Miranda warning is required, and the arrest is not invalid. Arrests are based upon probable cause. If rights are not read while the suspect is in custody, then a confession could be thrown out, but this would have no effect on the case in the movie as the eyewitness testimony was the main evidence, not a confession.
They don't let him go until they can arrest him again for the same charge (which would be double indemnity).
This was noted by Hildovar, but double jeopardy (not indemnity) only applies after the case has gone to court with charges filed- what the courts call jeopardy attaching. If a prosecutor drops charges before trial, jeopardy has not attached and the suspect could be arrested again.
Venza would have been free on that charge, the end. Case dismissed, it's over.
As long as the witness was alive, that was not the case.
Hey you! Is done by TV cops for foot chases. Real cops don't do this. -
first-things-first — 12 years ago(December 17, 2013 01:27 PM)
Thank-you for your explanation. Now I understand why he wanted Claire dead. But why he went after the cop's family will never make sense. Truly an 80's movie. All the protagonists (cop and family) save the day.
If we can save humanity, we become the caretakers of the world -
alangalpert — 15 years ago(December 29, 2010 01:38 PM)
You are correct, from a legal standpoint. However, we are told that Venza is a psychopath, and he does threaten to kill Claire if she identifies him, so it makes sense that he would go after her for purely vindictive reasons. Making good on a threat is a matter of gangsterly pride.