Viewers question the logic of the finale's ending, noting the cop who arrested Jerry and friends for not helping also failed to help the robbery victim.
Hey, if Jerry and the gang were arrested for not helping the fat guy when he was getting robbed, wasn't the cop who arrested them guilty of the same thing? I mean, he must have seen what was going on in order to notice the four of them standing there not doing anything. Why didn't *he* help the fat guy?
(I know, it's just a tv show, but I was bored, and this just happened to pop into my mind.)
Jaclyn
On Fri, 15 May 1998 16:17:36 -0400, Jaclyn wrote:
My impression is that it was supposed to be "ironic". Nailing the New Yorkers for not caring instead of the carjacker for stealing. Like their smirks are a bigger offense to Latham than anything a felon could do. Also, by nailing a celebrity, you can get a media circus in your town. And who cares what felons do, anyway?
In [email]
of
to
didn't
I thought they could have easily used the tape as evidence to help prosecute the car jacker
In a previous article, [email] (EasterSlic) says:
Even if the cop stood there watching the whole thing, he enjoyed sovereign immunity. Um, lesseeee... The state of Washington did away with sovereign immunity in 1961 when it passed its Tort Claims Act, but the state of Oregon still respects it, so long as its 100%, but if it is even partially at fault, then a jury divvies it up, let's see... Now, for Idaho and Montana and Utah and... Whew! It's a long way from here to Massachusetts! Uh, anybody have any comments about Massachusetts, and whether sovereign immunity is still a good principle over there?
-As for vindicating the public good, that's why states have attorney generals. I don't think Jerry or Elaine or George or Kramer could plead the empty chair defense here, and say that the real one that ought to be on trial is the police officer..... ;)
I thought the fat guy turned them in to the cop, who arrived just after the robbery.
At the risk of introducing a bit of common sense: The cop came along after the carjacking. He spoke to the victim, who pointed out the mocking bystanders. No carjacker was available to be arrested, the bystanders were.
Teresa C.
If you think about what is happening in our society right now, isn't this what is happening? Think about it.
In article ,
The idea of the law was to aid someone in distress, summon for help. Instead the 4 made mocking, untoward comment! All captured in tape. Plus the slew of character witness showed they had no remorse, indifferent to all human beings!
Actually, if the four ever had a chance to defend themselves(!), they could have said they were doing their part by capturing the crime on tape -- much more logical than risking life and limb to ward off an armed carjacker!
JRC
The cop said the law was to aid someone in distress "...if a reasonable person would do so..." or something like that. Hey, numbnuts! The carjacker had a gun! What were the Fab Foour supposed to do? And even if thye called a cop, what difference would that have made? After all, the cop showed up seconds after the carjacker drove off.